The downside of eDNA as a survey tool in water bodies

By J. Roussel, J. Paillisson, A. Treguier, E. Petit. 2015

192 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Molecular Biology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c1613a98018a92eab492353254fe2bf4e24e7173

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Molecular Biology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Benchmarking DNA Metabarcoding for Biodiversity-Based Monitoring and Assessment (2016, background): “…and Porifera)] may either represent organisms which had beenmissed by taxonomy based on morphology and metabarcoding from previously isolated organisms due to their small size ( 1 mm) or detected due to the fact that the free DNA has been transported from other localities (Roussel et al., 2015).”
Trawl and eDNA assessment of marine fish diversity, seasonality, and relative abundance in coastal New Jersey, USA (2021, background): “Technical factors related to PCR can distort eDNA findings, including co-purification of inhibitors along with DNA, primer bias, unrecognized cross-contamination, and non-linear amplification kinetics (Jerde et al., 2011; Roussel et al., 2015; Taberlet et al., 2018; Kelly et al., 2019).”
Taxonomic and geographical representation of freshwater environmental DNA research in aquatic conservation (2019, methodology): “This approach led to a highly controversial discussion, especially concerning quantitative estimates derived from eDNA techniques to supplement or to replace classical monitoring (Leese et al., 2018; Rees, Gough, Middleditch, Patmore, & Maddison, 2015; Rees, Maddison, et al., 2014; Roussel et al., 2”
Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the invasive crayfishes Orconectes rusticus and Pacifastacus leniusculus in large lakes of North America (2017, background): “However, a number of questions related to the application and interpretation of eDNAmethods persist and require ongoing research attention (Roussel et al., 2015; Barnes & Turner, 2016).”
From eDNA to citizen science: emerging tools for the early detection of invasive species (2020, background): “Users of eDNA technologies should be aware of some potential pitfalls (Roussel et al. 2015).”
Quantifying relative fish abundance with eDNA: a promising tool for fisheries management (2016, methodology): “Importantly, the potential for false positives and negatives should still be taken into consideration (Roussel et al. 2015), but recent method improvements now offer a range of different manipulations to meet these technical challenges.”
Effective monitoring of freshwater fish (2019, background): “…the non-detection of speciesspecific DNA fragments in a sample of river water does not necessarily imply the absence of the target species, nor does a positive signal necessarily imply that the species is present, as the eDNA could have been transported from upstream areas (Roussel et al., 2015).”